Is reconciliation the biggest problem in ObamaCare push?

posted at 10:55 am on March 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Over the last few days, readers have sent a number of e-mails objecting to our focus on reconciliation as the big problem facing the opposition to ObamaCare. Reconciliation is just a ruse, they warn. The real danger is that the House will pass the Senate version of ObamaCare and that Barack Obama will sign it into law. The Senate doesn’t have to do anything at that point, except perhaps dodge the missiles tossed across the Capitol’s parking lot from their colleagues in the House after stiffing them on fixing their concerns.

That certainly has some truth to it. The House has had the option to do just that ever since the Senate passed its version in late December. The House can do that at any time during this session of Congress, which ends in December. They do not need to even put it through the committee process, but can bring it to the floor expeditiously — and Republicans have no way to stop it. If Nancy Pelosi ever decides to do that — presuming she can get the votes to pass it — Obama would surely sign the bill.

If that’s all it took, though, it would already have been done. The problem is that the Senate bill is unpopular among Democrats in the House, mainly for three reasons. First, the Senate stripped out the public option. Progressives have come to a grudging understanding that they’re not going to revive that. However, they’re not at all pleased with the so-called Cadillac tax funding mechanism in the Senate bill, primarily because it will hammer union workers who won big health-care benefits over the years. Finally, on the opposite end of the Democratic caucus, the abortion issue has made the Senate bill a bridge too far for at least a dozen Representatives who voted for the bill the first time — when it passed by only five votes.

Pelosi, a member of the progressive caucus, made it clear that the Senate version was not acceptable and would not be the last word. She may change her mind at some point, but thus far, we’re not seeing much indication that enough of her Democratic caucus is willing to come along if she does. They’re only reluctantly proceeding with strategies to pass the Senate bill, conditional on passing a parallel bill that addresses their objections. The parallel bill is what would have to go through reconciliation, and now some Democrats have publicly insisted that the parallel bill would have to go through first. Harry Reid wants to use reconciliation to keep Republicans from filibustering the parallel bill and grinding the entire strategy to a halt.

Perhaps Democrats might feel as though they can simply trust the Senate to get the parallel bill accomplished and move forward on the Senate’s ObamaCare bill. That would take a rather extraordinary investment in the good intentions of both Reid and the White House. Unfortunately, as the Washington Post reported this week, that trust is in mighty short supply in the House:

Another senior member of the House Democratic caucus put it more bluntly. “I don’t think the White House has listened to him enough,” said the member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss frustration with the White House. “There is this growing sense in the House that this White House is tone-deaf and doesn’t care about 2010, that it is sacrificing members for 2012 and that the president thinks he doesn’t need to get engaged, or that he thinks politics don’t matter and that he could care less about what is happening on the streets of our districts. That’s not Rahm.”

The battle is certainly in the House, without question, as well as in the Senate. Like any Rube Goldberg device, the reconciliation strategy has a number of vulnerable points where a little sand in the gears will cause the whole mechanism to break down. That means we have to keep our eyes on the entire strategy, not just on one process, which Republicans and other ObamaCare opponents are doing.

The real nightmare scenario isn’t that the House might pass the Senate bill now, or in April. It’s that Democrats might get stymied now, and then pass the Senate bill after the midterms in late November, and allow Obama to sign it into law well after the time when voters have held them accountable for their radical agenda.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

So, if the House Dems vote and Obama signs the Senate bill in December 2010, it becomes Law.

The interesting thing is that the items requiring funding do not start until 2013 but the pain starts right away!

So the House does NOT need to hold up funding for anything for a couple of years. The Unions will not like their 40% tax on benefits and will be SCREAMING for relief. And the only ones who can deliver it will be the party that controls the House. Same for mandates and taxes in the bill. The Majority in the House will be the Belle at the Ball.

Ed, I applaud your vigilance, I think the Democrats are too stupid to keep their strategies secret. Whenever they get in front of a friendly audience, they broadcast their plans as loud and clear as possible (i.e. “bankrupt the coal industry”, “trojan horse for single payer”).

I do think the main problem for Obamacare will be convincing the House that it should vote for the Senate bill and trust the Senate and Obama to then go through reconciliation. They’d be suckers to take that gamble.

I have a question for Constitutional experts. Article 1, Section 7 states that “1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.” If the Senate bill raises any taxes, is it constitutional for the House to vote approval on the Senate bill?

I don’t know why this administration’s actions surprise anyone. This group has been planning for many years to deconstruct the US.

Remember Sun Tzu. Let your enemy think you are in chaos and incapable of action. Then overwhelm them. When this admin appears to be floundering and in panic, there is always another scenario in the wings to push there agenda through.

If you want to stop them, you need a similar strategy, a well though out plan. What is ours? Do we honestly think they are this chaotic accidentally?

It was apparent that Obama was completely indifferent to the Republicans at the summit. He was going through the motions because he already knew his plan. What is the Republicans plan? I hope it’s not just playing into the hands of these miscreants.

Do you know if the politicians who lose their seats would have the legal authority to cast votes after the Nov election results were confirmed?

katy on March 4, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Reagan called a lame duck session to deal with taxes while he was president.
The existing senators and representatives are still authorized to vote until the new congress is sworn in, which happens in early January.

I was just reading about Germany telling Greece to sell some islands.
I think that’s brilliant, Obama should sell California and see if he can raise a little money he seems to crave. He can fund Obamacare and then think about selling New york to help with the deficit.

Reagan called a lame duck session to deal with taxes while he was president.
The existing senators and representatives are still authorized to vote until the new congress is sworn in, which happens in early January.

MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Exactly:

Amendment XX
Section 1.

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Additionally, if it was passed via reconciliation, it would be repealed on the same basis within weeks of the 2011 opening session.Vashta.Nerada on March 4, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Not necessarily. Obama will still be president in 2011, and he wouldn\’t sign the repeal. But a Republican-controlled House could refuse to raise taxes to fund it, which could eventually cause a government shutdown a la 1995 if Obama refused to budge. After the standoff in 1995, both Bill Clinton and the Republican House majority won re-election, but Clinton did pragmatically shift to the center and sign the welfare-reform bill in 1996. It\’s not clear whether Obama would be willing to negotiate with a hostile Congress, or continue with his \”my way or the highway\” obstinacy. Still, it would be better if this massive health-care bill could be stopped now, rather than trying to repeal it later.

Reagan called a lame duck session to deal with taxes while he was president.
The existing senators and representatives are still authorized to vote until the new congress is sworn in, which happens in early January.

MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Which is ridiculous. Congress should be in recess between the election and swearing in of the newly elected members.

Clinton actually pled Guilty and was Disbarred for his illegal activty but was not removed from office with a House controled by Republicans. What do you think the odds of Obama being removed with no underlying illegal activty?

The crippling effects of this unmodified Taxes and Mandates in the bill would cripple the Democratic party. The masses and the lobbists would be begging the Republicans to stop it.

I have a question about the Senate. Bob Dole frequently voted with democrats so he would have the option to bring up the matter for reconsideration. Can Dan Brown move to reconsider the Senate’s bill since his predecessor voted for it? And would the passage of the bill on reconsideration require 60 votes or 51 votes?

Mark30339 on March 4, 2010 at 11:39 AM

Re consideration only works with bills that were defeated. The senate bill passed.

What do you think the odds of Obama being removed with no underlying illegal activty?

barnone on March 4, 2010 at 12:12 PM

You don’t need a criminal activity to justify impreachment. Misconduct alone is sufficient. Signing this bill after it was passed by a lame duck session is sufficient evidence of malfeasance in office.

I was just reading about Germany telling Greece to sell some islands.
I think that’s brilliant, Obama should sell California and see if he can raise a little money he seems to crave. He can fund Obamacare and then think about selling New york to help with the deficit.

Sounds good to me. Limbaugh just suggested that Obama should give Stupak a Greek island. Although I still think Obama needs to start going the other way, sell off some albatrosses and buy votes with appointments which are no cost to the king weasel.

You don’t need a criminal activity to justify impreachment. Misconduct alone is sufficient. Signing this bill after it was passed by a lame duck session is sufficient evidence of malfeasance in office.

MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM

As usual, you’re not so Great. Here’s the language:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Additionally, if it was passed via reconciliation, it would be repealed on the same basis within weeks of the 2011 opening session.Vashta.Nerada on March 4, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Only the portion that was passed by reconcilliation could be repealed by reconcilliation. Since the house would have passed the Senate version by regular vote, it would not be subject to reconcilliation.

I think what is happening is that the house is voting on the senate bill as if that is the bill that came out of committee to merge the two bills. Since there would be no changes to the senate bill they do not need to vote on it again. That is why there would need to be a “fix” later instead of now, lest the senate need 60 votes to pass it again.

I think what is happening is that the house is voting on the senate bill as if that is the bill that came out of committee to merge the two bills. Since there would be no changes to the senate bill they do not need to vote on it again. That is why there would need to be a “fix” later instead of now, lest the senate need 60 votes to pass it again.

The President is making it seem as though he’s behind Dem efforts for reconciliation to move in the Senate.

Like Lucy in the above video, Obama’s promising…PROMISING!!! to hold that football steady for the House and will absolutely pass the Senate fixes. And look! Lucy has a signed document for Charlie Brown to see! She can’t back down now.

So Charlie Brown falls for it…and as he comes crashing to the ground, Lucy comments… “Peculiar thing about this document–it was never notarized.”

So what would Obama say to the House Democrats he suckered into giving him his win when he does not urge the Senate to keep their word and they move on to other more pressing matters? I doubt he’d show even token concern for the position he’s put them in.

Money quote from Charlie Brown when Lucy first comes over to him with the football to trick him yet again:

misdemeanor, in law, a minor crime, in contrast to a felony. At common law a misdemeanor was a crime other than treason or a felony. Although it might be a grave offense, it did not affect the feudal bond or take away the offender’s property. By the 19th cent. serious crimes were labeled felonies, and minor crimes misdemeanors. In the United States a misdemeanor usually is an offense that may be punished summarily by fine and by imprisonment for less than a year. Commission of a misdemeanor does not cancel citizenship or subject an alien to deportation. In some states of the United States certain minor law violations are not even classified as misdemeanors, e.g., traffic offenses and breach of municipal regulations.

Are you pretending to be a lawyer, or pretending to know what you are talking about. It’s getting harder and harder to tell these days.

Look up the phrase, high crimes and misdemeanors as traditionally used in conjunction with impeachment. It doesn’t mean what you so desperately want to believe it does.

Judges have been impeached for public drunkeness, at a time when public drunkeness wasn’t a crime.

MarkTheGreat on March 4, 2010 at 1:08 PM

–The judge you’re thinking of was also insane for several years. Congress was trying to find a way out. For some reasons, a link to infoplease.com isn’t being allowed, but you would see that treason, income tax evasion, bribery and perjury. Political discord/animosity has been shown to not be grounds for impeachment.

The real nightmare scenario isn’t that the House might pass the Senate bill now, or in April. It’s that Democrats might get stymied now, and then pass the Senate bill after the midterms in late November, and allow Obama to sign it into law well after the time when voters have held them accountable for their radical agenda.

Ed, I don’t think that’s possible. I seem to recall that there is a time-limit on acting on the Senate bill and that once that time expires the bill can no longer be simply ‘ping-ponged’ to the President. Presumably post-election would be after that window. D.GOOCH

Understand something about impeachment, it’s a political check, no crime is required.

The House can Impeach, and the Senate Convict, on any grounds whatsoever as long as they’re willing to face the voters afterward. Think of it as a predecessor to recall. If the voters are screaming for the removal of the President (or a Supreme Court Justice, for that matter), Congress can do it if Congress wants to.

Richard Nixon was told by the Republican Leadership that if he didn’t step down they would back Democrat Impeachment Proceedings. The only crime Nixon was guilty of was Lying to the People about Watergate. He was not implicated in the actual break-in. So the precedent is their for the Congress to bring proceedings against Obama if they so wish.

It’s complicated, all right. If the House passes the Senate bill, then Obama has what he wants, the Senate can wash their hands of the whole business, and we’re stuck. The whole problem is that the House doesn’t want the Senate bill, for multiple reasons. Reconciliation is offered to give them a reason to pass the Senate bill they don’t like, with a promise that they’ll get what they want through reconciliation. Obviously, reconciliation is hard and painful for the Senate and the President, so you can imagine how easy it would be for them to break their promise the moment they get the Senate bill passed.

I think the House is well-advised to distrust the Senate and Obama. The whole debate looks to center on whether the House can believe they’ll get what they want through reconciliation. The left wants to promise that reconciliation is a done deal. The right wants to emphasize that reconciliation won’t get through. I’d say that the crux of the healthcare bill IS about reconciliation, since whether the House passes the Senate bill will be determined purely by whether they believe reconciliation will give them what they want.

I seem to recall that there is a time-limit on acting on the Senate bill and that once that time expires the bill can no longer be simply ‘ping-ponged’ to the President. Presumably post-election would be after that window. D.GOOCH

DGOOCH on March 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM

A time limit applies only to legislation they are seeking to pass via reconciliation. There is nothing to stop the House from voting for the as-is Senate bill between now and January 2, 2011.

Are House Democrats stupid enough to think Senate Republicans are just gonna sit there and let Senate Democrats pass “fixes” to the bill House Democrats are about to vote on? Every fix will fail because there are 41 votes against invoking cloture.

Wayback machine set to June 2005. Democrats have NO problem with President Bush’s judicial nominees. Chuck Schumer says the saucer does not need to cool the cup of overheated politics because Republicans won. Republican views, however extreme, hold sway because they represent the majority of voters.

Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown are seated on the Supreme Court and Democrats celebrate the new diversity.

As much as House Democrats may want the Senate to “go first” on the reconciliation bill, they can’t. The House has to pass the Senate bill first for there to be anything to reconcile. Secondly, I think the reconciliation bill has to originate in the House too, since it deals with revenue, which Constitutionally has to start there.

The battle is in the House, because if they pass the Senate bill it’s game over, the Left has ObamaCare. Senate reconciliation is a distraction.

The President is making it seem as though he’s behind Dem efforts for reconciliation to move in the Senate.

Like Lucy in the above video, Obama’s promising…PROMISING!!! to hold that football steady for the House and will absolutely pass the Senate fixes. And look! Lucy has a signed document for Charlie Brown to see! She can’t back down now.

So Charlie Brown falls for it…and as he comes crashing to the ground, Lucy comments… “Peculiar thing about this document–it was never notarized.”

So what would Obama say to the House Democrats he suckered into giving him his win when he does not urge the Senate to keep their word and they move on to other more pressing matters? I doubt he’d show even token concern for the position he’s put them in.

Money quote from Charlie Brown when Lucy first comes over to him with the football to trick him yet again:

“Oh brother. I don’t mind your dishonesty half as much as I mind your opinion of me. You must think I am stupid.“

powerpro on March 4, 2010 at 12:30 PM

I think that is only part 1. Part two comes years after ObamaCare has been passed. Now, we have all been taxed for four years, AND all the taxes paid have been spent twice (or more). The government has no money for benefits, therefore it must cut them before they even start.